JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The order passed by the Under Secretary, Digital Addressable System, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India rejecting the application dated 17 December 2012 filed by the petitioner for registration as Multi-Systems Operator (MSO) for the purpose of operation of cable television network services with digital addressable system in Agra, Allahabad, Kanpur, Lucknow, Meerut and Varanasi, has been assailed in this petition. 2. The petitioner had submitted an application dated 17 December 2012 for obtaining a certificate of registration under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (the Act) read with the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (the Rules). 3. Rule 11-A of the Rules provides that for the purpose of operation of cable television network services with digital addressable system in a notified area, a person who desires to provide such services shall make an application for registration as MSO to the Registering Authority. Rule 11-B deals with eligibility criteria, while rule 11-C deals with registration as a MSO. Rule 11-C provides that on being satisfied that the applicant fulfils the eligibility criteria specified under rule 11-B and the requirements of rule 11-A, the Registering Authority shall, subject to the terms and conditions specified in rule 11-D and the security clearance from the Central Government, issue a certificate of registration. Rule 11-D deals with terms and conditions for registration as MSO. Rule 11-E deals with provisional registration. It provides that where an application has been made under rule 11-A and the Registering Authority considers that pending registration, it is necessary to grant provisional registration, it may, after preliminary scrutiny of such application, grant provisional registration but such provisional registration shall not confer any right to the applicant to claim regular registration. It also provides that where regular registration is refused to be granted, the provisional registration so granted shall stand cancelled. 4. The petitioner was granted a provisional registration under rule 11-E of the Rules pending registration by an order dated 21 February 2013. It was specifically mentioned in the said order that the grant of the said provisional registration will not confer any right to the petitioner to claim continuance of the said registration in case the security clearance was denied by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was specifically mentioned in the said order that the grant of the said provisional registration will not confer any right to the petitioner to claim continuance of the said registration in case the security clearance was denied by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was also mentioned that in the event, the security clearance is denied, the petitioner shall shut down its operations forthwith and shall have no claim whatsoever against the Government for any investment made in lieu of obtaining the said provisional registration. The Ministry of Home Affairs, however, denied the security clearance to the petitioner. The Under Secretary in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, accordingly, by a communication dated 23 April 2014 informed the petitioner that regular registration cannot be granted to it and that the provisional registration stands cancelled. However, in the interest of the consumers, fifteen days' time was granted to the petitioner to windup its operations. 5. When the matter was taken up by the Court on 13 May 2014, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India was granted time to produce the relevant order of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The original records have now been placed before the Court. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company submitted that the application for registration could have been rejected under rule 11-C(2) only if the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for MSO as contained in rule 11-B. It is also his submission that the security clearance should not have been denied, particularly when the petitioner company had been granted a provisional registration and during this period of operation, no illegality had been committed. Learned counsel also submitted that no reasons have been assigned in the order denying the registration to the petitioner even though Rule 11-C(2) requires the Registering Authority to inform the applicant of the reasons in case the registration was denied and that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner before refusing the registration. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, however, supported the impugned order and has submitted that the certificate of registration as MSO can only be issued when a security clearance is given by the Central Government and, therefore, the Authority committed no illegality in not issuing the certificate of registration. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, however, supported the impugned order and has submitted that the certificate of registration as MSO can only be issued when a security clearance is given by the Central Government and, therefore, the Authority committed no illegality in not issuing the certificate of registration. Learned counsel further submitted that the grant of provisional registration under rule 11-E does not confer any right to an applicant to claim a regular registration and for refusal to grant registration opportunity was not required to be provided to the applicant, particularly when the security clearance itself had been refused. 8. Rule 11-C provides that a certificate of registration can be issued for the purpose of operation of cable television network services with digital addressable system in a notified area only when the Registering Authority is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the eligibility criteria specified in rule 11-B and the requirements of rule 11-A and that the security clearance has been granted by the Central Government. 9. As noticed hereinabove, the security clearance was not granted to the petitioner company. The file reveals that the matter was referred to Intelligence Bureau (I.B.) which submitted a reported dated 20 March 2014. The report mentions that the petitioner company had been floated by one Santosh Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Silverline Entertainment Private Limited for obtaining another MSO licence; the petitioner company does not have any setup of its own for carrying out business activities and the location for business activities of the petitioner company is the same as that of M/s. Silverline Entertainment Private Limited; in fact, one Director of the company is actually working as a clerical staff in the office of the proprietor of M/s. Silverline Entertainment Private Limited and is not financially sound to own a cable company; the other Director also is not financially sound and is working as a local cable operator of M/s. Silverline Entertainment Private Limited; and both the Directors of the petitioner company are the guarantors to the loan of Rs.1433.48 lacs taken by the Director of M/s. Silverline Entertainment Private Limited from a Bank even though they have no financial base of their own and are not capable of giving any guarantee. The report submitted by I.B. had been accepted and security clearance was rejected. Good and cogent reasons have been recorded for not granting security clearance. The report submitted by I.B. had been accepted and security clearance was rejected. Good and cogent reasons have been recorded for not granting security clearance. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs not to give security clearance to the petitioner company. 10. The petitioner may have been granted a provisional registration under rule 11-E of the Rules but rule 11-E itself provides that such provisional registration will not confer any right on the applicant to claim a regular registration. The order granting provisional registration to the petitioner company also specifically mentions that grant of provisional registration will not confer any right to the petitioner to claim continuance of the registration in case the security clearance was denied by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The conduct of the business by the petitioner during the provisional registration period has no bearing on the security clearance, which has to be independently examined by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission of the petitioner that the regular registration was illegally denied. 11. We are further of the opinion that in a situation as in the present case, when the security clearance had been denied, no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner before rejecting the application for grant of registration. The impugned order specifically mentions that the registration cannot be granted as security clearance was not given by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The petitioner is, therefore, not justified in asserting that reasons have not been assigned in the impugned order. 12. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order stands vacated.